Canada declares war on Catholicism

[Wezil]

I would have posted earlier but ****nuts has ruined another thread.

The Catholic opposition to the word "gay" is actually eroding support for separate school funding in the province. I hope they continue to squawk as loud and long as possible. Bigotry on the public dime is not popular.

[Wezil]

Isn't it worse to tuck tail and run from a "nuisance"? Even the French stuck it out longer...

Now you guys are running as well. Losing is becoming a habit for you guys.

[Ben Kenobi]

High school graduations frequently end with group prayers.

Oh heavens, whatever shall we do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bigotry on the public dime is not popular.

Which explains all the professors opposed to Catholicism, eh? Oh, wait, I forgot. Bigotry against Catholics is ok.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lets assume that muslims had a similar position within the canadian judical system

Let's assume we're in Mecca.

(i.e. constitutionally guaranteed funding for muslim public schools). Would you defend their right to teach in these public schools, that all apostates from the muslim faith have to be killed or locked away?

That's what they do teach in Mecca. So, I'm not seeing the problem here. Muslims in Mecca teach that it's ok to kill infidels. Are you saying that muslims in Mecca shouldn't be able to teach this?

(after all it is the traditionmal view, the majority of muslim scholars adheres to, and therefore should be allowed to be taught)

So you're saying that muslims killing infidels is the same thing as the Church refusing to host the Vagina Monologues? See, here's the difference. Gay people have access to public schooling. They are not being deprived of an education. If they don't like Catholic education, they are free to go elsewhere. Are Copts in Egypt 'free' to go elsewhere, or are the Muslims trying to execute them?

[Ben Kenobi]

The reason why many provinces have Catholic schools has been explained in other threads. It entirely comes down to placating Quebec while unifying Canada, it had **** all to do with religious freedom. In fact, the Catholic systems are unconstitutional as they violate the terms of discrimination based on religion. Some *******s actually knew that and added a clause to the constitution admitting as such, but saying "but you can't use the religious equality clause to strike this down!"

It has everything to do with the religious freedom of Catholics outside of Quebec.

So while it is technically in the constitution, it's there despite the constitution and the purposes for its existence no longer really exist.

So basically, I can ignore the parts of the constitution that I don't like? Cool.

[kentonio]

That's what they do teach in Mecca. So, I'm not seeing the problem here. Muslims in Mecca teach that it's ok to kill infidels. Are you saying that muslims in Mecca shouldn't be able to teach this?

Yes, I think it's pretty safe to assume everyones saying that they shouldn't be able to teach that.

So you're saying that muslims killing infidels is the same thing as the Church refusing to host the Vagina Monologues?

It's so much easier to start rambling about silly things like that rather than face head on the idea of gay children being bullied and intimidated in schools, often to the point of suicide by your 'loving' church, isn't it.

See, here's the difference. Gay people have access to public schooling. They are not being deprived of an education. If they don't like Catholic education, they are free to go elsewhere.

Would you like to explain how a poor family living on a shoe string budget can afford to pick and choose where they send their kids, especially in areas with poor public transport?

[kentonio]

So basically, I can ignore the parts of the constitution that I don't like? Cool.

You already ignore the parts of 'being a normal decent human being' that you like, so why not the constitution as well. Go crazy.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are delusional and a terrible human being. It takes a special kind of ******* to characterize anti-bullying efforts as "taking away people's rights".

That's exactly what you are doing. Instead of respecting the constitutional rights for Catholics to have access to an education that supports their faith, you are trying to destroy it. You are the bully, asher, and I have to laugh that one of the biggest bullies here is complaining about this.

Allowing gays to marry doesn't take away your rights.

Banning Catholics from teaching that homosexuality is sinful does take away my rights, and my livelihood for that matter. See, it never stops at just 'leaving us alone', it's all about forcing other people to do stuff they don't want to do.

Protecting gays from bullying and harassment doesn't take away your rights.

Yes, it does, when you shut down Catholic schools, hospitals and adoption agencies.

Allowing students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance doesn't take away your rights.

It's called freedom of association - look it up. The Church is allowed to have rules that enforce what the Church teaches. This includes hiring teachers that abide by their faith, and yes, refusing entry to school grounds by those who wish to undermine what the church teaches. Like I said earlier, masturbation clubs aren't permittes, so why should sodomy clubs be permitted.

You are trampling on everyone else's rights

Nonsense. There are plenty of sodomy clubs in the secular public schools, that are paid for with my tax dollars. In all actuality, I am supporting your freedom to have an education that supports your beliefs.

[Ben Kenobi]

You already ignore the parts of 'being a normal decent human being' that you like, so why not the constitution as well. Go crazy.

How so? I'm the only one here arguing that all of the constitution is valid, which includes section 13.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, I think it's pretty safe to assume everyones saying that they shouldn't be able to teach that.

So why aren't you picketing in Mecca?

It's so much easier to start rambling

Answer the question. Is the Church choosing not to permit the Vagina Monologues in their schools the same as muslims preaching death to the infidel?

Would you like to explain how a poor family living on a shoe string budget can afford to pick and choose where they send their kids, especially in areas with poor public transport?

So if the Catholic school system is superior, why should it emulate the failed policies of the public school system? You aren't helping your case here. There are far more secular schools than Catholic schools - if a parent is willing to go out of their way to attend a superior Catholic school - then the Catholic school should be able to keep the policies which permit them an advantage over the public schools.

[DinoDoc]

Would you like to explain how a poor family living on a shoe string budget can afford to pick and choose where they send their kids, especially in areas with poor public transport?

If this bit from wiki is to be believed While Catholic high schools are funded by the provincial crown, making them open to any students who wish to attend, elementary schools do not have to enroll non-Catholic students.

Catholic schools don't seem to have exclusive claim on the students living in their area. As for the other part, do they not have school buses in Canada?

[Ming]

Oh, wait, I forgot. Bigotry against Bigots is ok.

FIXED

[Proteus_MST]

Let's assume we're in Mecca.

That's what they do teach in Mecca. So, I'm not seeing the problem here. Muslims in Mecca teach that it's ok to kill infidels.

Well, I am talking specifically about Canada ...
would you, if the canadian government had exactly the same constitutionally guaranteed agreements with the muslims (towards public schools) as it has with the catholics, agree, that muslims should be allowed to teach (in public schools, on canadian soil), that apostates have to be killed or imprisoned?

Are you saying that muslims in Mecca shouldn't be able to teach this?

If I had a say in the legislature of arabian countries then yes, I would say exactly this. Religion should have certain limits in what they are allowed to teach within schools, this involves the treatment of other (minority) groups (i.e. people of other faiths or other sexual orientation) as well as the treatment of other genders.

So you're saying that muslims killing infidels is the same thing as the Church refusing to host the Vagina Monologues? See, here's the difference. Gay people have access to public schooling. They are not being deprived of an education. If they don't like Catholic education, they are free to go elsewhere. Are Copts in Egypt 'free' to go elsewhere, or are the Muslims trying to execute them?

The Canadian government doesn´t force you to host the Vagina Monologues in public schools (at least I asume so).. they don´t even force you to say good things about homosexuality (or sex before marriage), it just forces you to abstain from saying bad things about people who do such things.
I assume the new laws don´t even prevent you from telling the kids in public school, that homosexual behavior (or sex before marriage etc. ) are against the rules established within your religion (as this is worded neutral and therefore very probably won´t be considered hate speech), so you could even teach your kids what they, as catholics, are "allowed" to do and what not

And as for similarities between muslims teaching that apostates have to be killed/imprisoned and your teachings that homosexuals (and other "sexual sinners") are immoral and will burn in hell:
Muslims are not allowed (at least I suspect so) under canadian law, to teach in public schools that apostates have to be killed /imprisoned, as well as you aren´t allowed anymore (under canadian law), to teach that homosexuals are immoral beings who will burn in eternal hellfire.
Also, Muslims (at least certain muslim groups) with the assumed same status as the catholic church in Canada (with regards to having state funded public schools) would surely, with regards to the killing/imprisonment of apostates, argue the same way as the catholic church does, i.e., that it impedes their religious freedom, not being allowed to teach the things they do.

[Wezil]

Where we are at...

They are stubborn in defence of views that increasingly look anachronistic. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that the “diversity” of their province hinges on their ability to continue implicitly or directly telling some of the most vulnerable kids in the high-school system that there’s something wrong with them.

So, yes, it's easy right now to gang up on Ontario's Catholic leaders. But in the protracted fight over “gay-straight alliances” that seems to have come to a head this week, they're not the ones who really deserve to be feeling the heat.

That honour goes, instead, to the men and women running the province, who prefer to tell religious leaders how they should change their moral code rather than tell them they no longer have any business advancing that code through publicly funded schools.

To most of the rest of the Western world, it would come as little surprise that Catholics in Ontario – the ones in senior positions within the church, at least – are uncomfortable telling kids that it’s okay to be gay. The surprise, rather, would be that Ontario still has a publicly funded Catholic school system beyond any point at which it’s reasonably needed or defensible as a minority right.

For that matter, we’re also rapidly passing the point at which that system’s Catholicism has any real meaning. To many of us, the church’s willingness to allow its identity to be heavily shaped by its positions on hot-button social issues – gay rights and abortion first among them – might seem peculiar. But to tell Catholics they can have their own schools but not their own beliefs surely defeats whatever purpose these schools are still supposed to serve.

That leaves – should leave – two choices.

One would be to let Catholics run their publicly funded schools according to their value system. Never mind that many of the students aren’t really there for a religious education, since there aren’t actually enough religious Catholics to sustain a parallel system in many parts of the province. This is our system, and we’re sticking with it.

The other would be for government finally to accept that, sometimes, progress involves a few headaches, and start treating Catholics the same as everyone else – free to practice their faith as they see fit, including with religious schools, but not on the public dime.

Privately, many of the people in and around government believe that’s the right way to go, and some take it as a given that it will eventually happen. But somehow, it remains a third rail that nobody in a position of power is willing to touch.

Not Dalton McGuinty, whose own Catholic upbringing, and subsequent emergence as a social liberal and self-styling as the “education Premier” would make him uniquely well-suited to tackle the issue. Not either of the opposition leaders, Tim Hudak or Andrea Horwath. (The lone exception among party chiefs is Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner, but it would be a stretch to say he’s in a position of power.) And not Don Drummond, the economist who earlier this year delivered a report with some 360 recommendations to make government more efficient, yet somehow managed to overlook the waste from doubling up on school administration across the province.

Now that the GSAs have once again brought attention to how outdated the system is, our leaders have another opportunity to get this right. At a minimum, they should level with Catholic leaders, by urging them to forego public funding if they want to receive the same treatment – and have the same freedom – as every other religion or denomination.

Still, it seems easier to gloss over the obvious.

On Monday, Progressive Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod accused Mr. McGuinty’s government of having “provoked the Catholic education system,” and of laying the groundwork for defunding it, by insisting that schools recognize GSAs. That she thought this would be a bad thing was slightly odd, given that Ms. MacLeod is a young MPP who has intermittently championed the kinds of anti-bullying measures that so trouble separate schools, but she needn’t worry. The government has thus far shown more inclination to try to make Catholicism palatable to the masses than tell Catholics to practice it on their own time.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/politicians-not-catholics-deserve-ontarios-wrath-for-funding-religious-schools/article4217550/

The more the bigots complain about not being allowed to continue their bigotry the more palatable the "3rd rail" becomes.

I wish we had more Bens in the debate.